Registration of decree for sale agreement upheld; Section 22-A did not bar registration, and pending collateral writs were irrelevant.

A decree embodying an agreement of sale was held not to fall within the prohibition in Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, because an agreement for sale does not itself create an interest in immovable property and a decree for specific performance does not alter that position. The court also held that Section 29(2) governed registration of the copy of a decree, so registration was not confined to the sub-district where the property was situated; presentation at the office where the decree was made was proper, and registration could be effected in the manner permitted by that provision. Pending collateral writ proceedings concerning patta did not justify refusal of registration, and the objections failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a decree embodying an agreement of sale could be refused registration under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 on the ground that the property was said to belong to the Government; (ii) whether the copy of the decree had to be registered only in the sub-district where the property was situate or whether registration could be made in the office of the Sub-Registrar where the decree was made or at another office chosen by the parties; (iii) whether the pendency of connected writ proceedings concerning patta was a valid ground to refuse registration.

Issue (i): Whether a decree embodying an agreement of sale could be refused registration under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 on the ground that the property was said to belong to the Government.

Analysis: Section 22-A applies to instruments relating to transfer of immovable property by way of sale, gift, mortgage, exchange or lease. An agreement of sale does not itself create any interest in immovable property under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The decree in question was treated as a substituted agreement of sale subject to conditions, and even a decree for specific performance does not create an interest in immovable property. On that footing, the document did not fall within the prohibition under Section 22-A.

Conclusion: The refusal to register could not be sustained under Section 22-A.

Issue (ii): Whether the copy of the decree had to be registered only in the sub-district where the property was situate or whether registration could be made in the office of the Sub-Registrar where the decree was made or at another office chosen by the parties.

Analysis: Section 28 governs documents that affect immovable property, whereas Section 29(2) specifically deals with copies of decrees or orders. A copy of a decree may be presented in the office where the original decree was made, and where the decree does not affect immovable property, registration may also be done at any other Sub-Registrar office within the State chosen by the persons claiming under the decree. Since the decree was held to be only an agreement of sale and not one affecting immovable property, Section 28 did not control the matter. The office where the decree was passed was therefore a proper office for registration.

Conclusion: The objection based on place of registration was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the pendency of connected writ proceedings concerning patta was a valid ground to refuse registration.

Analysis: The pending writ appeal concerned a separate challenge regarding patta and title claims. It had no direct bearing on the present decree presented for registration. Pending collateral proceedings, by themselves, did not justify refusal to register the decree.

Conclusion: The pendency of the connected writ proceedings was not a valid ground to refuse registration.

Final Conclusion: All the objections raised against registration failed, and the appeal was dismissed, leaving the writ Court's direction to register the decree undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A decree embodying an agreement of sale, which does not create an interest in immovable property, is not hit by Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, and its copy may be registered under Section 29(2) without being confined to the situs of the property; unrelated pending litigation cannot by itself justify refusal of registration.

---